Debunking peak oil hype with facts and figures, and exposing the agendas behind peak oil.
DISCLAIMER FOR IDIOTS: This site officially accepts that oil is finite, and will peak someday.

Friday, June 25, 2010

427. PEAK OIL SNOOZE-ATHON CONTINUES

Hi everyone.I've been on a long vacation from peak oil because it's so boring and irrelevant to daily life, but today I'd like to pop back in for an update on the situation.

Has anything happened? Not really, if by "happened" you mean any of the things the doomers predicted.

I first began writing on peak oil 6 years ago, in the summer of 2004. Matt Savinar was predicting imminent TEOTWAWKI, and telling folks to run for the hills. Now, 6 years later, I can go out on the street, and nothing whatsoever has changed since 2004. The streets are still clogged with cars going on mindless journeys. People are sleeping in their cars with the engine running to power the air-conditioning. Oil is at $75 and it's not going anywhere. Food prices and availability are completely normal. Plastic Hello Kitty paraphernalia is as plentiful and cheap as ever. Peak oil continues to be a ridiculously over-hyped non-event, just like I always predicted. I thumb my nose at it with impunity. LOL.

The Oil Drum doesn't even bother with new posts anymore. Just recycled versions of the same old "oil spill" post, flopping over and over like a flat tire, wump wump wump. Quite a comedown from the heady days of A Nosedive Toward the Desert in 2007.

Yup, peak oil is yesterday's party. The IEA is yawning and predicting oversupply of oil until 2015. Lucky us. Five more years of "topics for discussion" from Gail the ActuarySource

Matt Simmons' ongoing nervous breakdown continues to blossom in fascinating ways. Last week he predicted a mass evacuation of gulf states:"We're going to have to evacuate the gulf states," said Matt Simmons, founder of Simmons and Co., an oil investment firm and, since the April 20 blowout, the unflagging source of end-of-the-world predictions. "Can you imagine evacuating 20 million people? ... This story is 80 times worse than I thought."Source Yah, that's some funny stuff. I think Matt Simmons is about 80 times more mentally unstable than I thought.

Matt "Bozo" Simmons

More hysterical bullshit from Matt Simmons:"Mexico's ability to export oil will be over by the end of 2009."(Spoken prediction made at 35:50 of the interview available here)The reality:Mexico exported 1.59 million barrels of crude per day in May 2010.Source

Speaking of the mentally ill, Mike Ruppert predicted that a nuke would be used on the gulf oil spill in a week to 10 days. That was a month ago. LOL."I predict that US Continuity of Government provisions will be activated and that FEMA will, before end of summer, be placed in complete control of the Southeast United States… limited martial law." Source

Colin Campbell, the pope of peak oil, recently caved and became a peak demand believer.

"I have changed my point of view about future prices," said Campbell, who used to think the peak in conventional oil production, which he believes happened in 2005, would lead to a relentless price surge.

Instead, the record rally led to a peak in demand in the developed world.

"Peak oil drives prices up in the first place. It has its own mechanism. We're sort of at peak demand right now," Campbell told Reuters from his home in the village of Ballydehob, West Cork. "I think presently the price limit is about $100."Source

Good job Colin, you ridiculous dumbass. You would have figured that out a long time ago if you had the sense to read Peak Oil Debunked.

1384 Comments:

I figured it was only a matter of time 'till the spill shook JD out of his funk. Maybe it's because gold is at record highs, or because oil was creeping back to $80, or maybe it was the rising unemployment and the market tanking.

Or maybe he's back because he got his ass handed to him for that flimsy peice of snot he wrote about local food.

In any case, it really great to have you back. Hope you have something new to say this time.

Thanks for the post...nice to know you're still around. I understand how easy it is to hit the snooze button on peak oil since it's just so damn boring now a days. I figured I'd drop in and give you a few more gems on Ruppert.

From his April 30th FTW post:

"Coastal refineries may have to close... What might happen if the oil ignited? Oil should be at $100 before the end of next week. I suspect between $150 and $200 (maybe higher) this summer."

Welcome back! We missed your skewering so...You're absolutely right about the Oil Drum...it's a bit pathetic that all they're doing these days is giving updates on the oil spill. They sound like CNN with their all-day every-day chit-chat between commentators. And the only new capitulations to peak oil they can find are small town journalists or credulous investors who've discovered some half-baked concept of oil depletion for the first time.

Please do continue with your posting.

Bill,In regard to that 'flimsy piece of snot' about the disadvantages of local food, you might want to check this out:http://reason.com/archives/2008/11/04/the-food-miles-mistakeLocal food has a bigger carbon footprint and consumes more fuel than that brought in from across the world. Counterintuitive, but true.

Freewheelin' Franklin,Did you notice the part where deepwater drilling still only accounts for a tiny fraction of all oil production? "The fact is that very little oil is produced at the highest cost. In 2008, 44% of the global supply was provided by OPEC, and very low-cost OPEC producers in the Middle East have an oil extraction cost of about $2/barrel." (Gorelick, Oil Panic and the Global Crisis, p.118) Gorelick also notes that oil does not show a high scarcity rent-an increase in price relative to marginal extraction cost-indicating that imminent resource depletion is not on the horizon.

I've been a long time follower of this blog, and am really glad to hear a non-doomer point of view that still acknowledges peak oil. As much as I love to read Kunstler, it gets old sometimes. Yes, I know that "the American way of life" is wasteful and must cope with external realities, but do I need to hear about how NASCAR and American culture is "lower than" some European/Old World model?

Any why is it that guys like Kunstler don't have their own hidey holes? If you thought the end was coming, wouldn't you make preparations? Matt Simmons lives up the road from me in a fairly large town. That's not "it's-all-going-to-end" behavior. It seems sometimes that these guys are genuine, but playing it up a bit to make a buck. Fair enough, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Well, has anyone been looking at non-OPEC production lately? It is just a hair away from a new record. If you had told everyone at TOD or PO.com that non-OPEC would be setting new records in 2010 or afterwards, they would have laughed in your face. Aside from the oil spill, I think *that* has been the oil story for the past year.

Yep, looks like Ace will have to come up with a new graph. Again. And it's odd that alternative energy is still increasing exponentially when the EROEI is supposedly negative. And shouldn't the "peak oil" induced financial crises have put a lid on new energy production? You can learn a lot reading TOD. Just keep in mind that whatever they say, the exact opposite is true.

I luv this trip down nostalgia lane JD has taken us on. It inspired me to drag out my old 2004 spreadsheets.

Today there are almost three dozen practitioners with peak oil forecasts. To protect the integrity and utility of the average used in our Peak Oil Scenarios, we found it necessary over time to weed out the riff raff by dividing the projections into Tier-1, Tier-2 & Invalidated presentations. Here's some revelations:

Some observations: The optimists have been downgrading their Peak Rate by an avg 3mbd/yr. McPeaksters are upward revising 1mbd/yr. Proven reserves have increased by 48Gb over six years whilst over the same period consumption used up 187-Gb! How did that happen? Each $1/barrel rise in price generates 33Gb of new URR (EUR).

And while we're dumping on Matt Simmons, by his April 2008 forecast All Liquids should have been down to 76-mbd in 2010. Instead, we set a new quarterly production record in Q1 of 85.9-mbd. I won't mention that his price for a barrel of crude was to be $182. Ace & Jeff Rubin projected $100 & $160 respectively for June 2010.

I would be remiss w/o mentioning the best of the vintage production "forecasts" are all by Jean Laherrere. The closest numbers for 2008, 2009 & 2010 were all in this stalwart French geologist's 1997 study with the worst estimate being out by only 1.3-mbd. He's the man!!

Thanks for the update on the various peak scenarios Freddy. Laherrere’s definitely the one to watch. Four years ago he was predicting an all liquids peak near 90mbpd around 2020 with an Estimated Ultimate Recovery of 3,000Gb(3Tb), but 4Tb now looks more likely. That suggests all liquids production should remain over 80mbpd until some time after 2050.

Good to have you back, JD. I hope you have been well and in good spirits.

I wonder if you're following the thrilling contest known as the Simmons-Tierney Bet?

http://tinyurl.com/simmons-tierney

or, if that link doesn't work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmons-Tierney_bet

Of course, it appears that Matt Simmons is losing the bet big time, but we won't know for sure until Jan 1, 2011:

=== begin quoted text ===

[numeric references in the Wikipedia article]

The Simmons-Tierney bet is a bet made in August 2005 between Houston banking executive Matthew R. Simmons and New York Times columnist John Tierney.[1] The stakes of the bet are US$10,000.00. The subject of the bet is the year-end average of the daily price-per-barrel of crude oil for the entire calendar year of 2010. The bet is to be settled on January 1, 2011....

... Their final agreement was a commitment to tabulate every closing price-per-barrel of oil for each market day of 2010, then average out those prices for the entire year from January 1 through December 31, adjusted for inflation to 2005 prices. If the year-end adjusted average comes out to $200.00 or more per barrel, Mr. Simmons wins. If it averages out to less than $200.00, Mr. Tierney wins. The winner takes the entire pot of US$10,000.00, plus interest--$5,000.00 from both parties, currently sitting in escrow.

The bet was made public just two days later in an op-ed piece by Tierney published in The New York Times on August 23, 2005 called "The $10,000.00 Question"....

=== end quoted text ===

Here's the Aug 23, 2005 NY Times Op-Ed piece:

http://tinyurl.com/2erfs5y

You can check the per barrel price of oil here (light crude, $/barrel):

http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/

52 week range: $59.08 - $87.00; price at the time of this writing: $72.14

So, when the dust settles on the World Cup, we can sit back and enjoy the moment-by-moment thrill of the Simmons-Tierney Contest!

$200/barrel? $7.50/gallon? .30/mile? $3 to drive 10 miles? No thanks. I think I would opt for a Prius with an Enginer battery charger and pay 3 cents a mile for electricity. OPEC is smart to keep oil below a certain price or people will stop buying it. Doomers hate alternatives because they shoot the whole "crash theory" down. Looks like Matt will soon have to put his money where is big mouth was. Maybe this will quiet him down a bit.

”He slashed his URR to 2.9-Tb from 4, and now predicts peak to be 85.8-mbd in 2011.”

That sounds overly pessimistic, given that OPEC has an estimated spare capacity of up to 5-6mbpd and non-OPEC production has been rising recently. Supplies should be very tight soon if his new forecast is accurate. I wonder what his rationale is for this downgrade.

I think you are a little short sided, JD. The auto-centric fossil-fuel model is being stressed. The model is a brief, failing experiment. Really, it's only about 100 years old. Yes, in the short term, nothing has changed. There is plenty of gas for less than $3 per gallon to drive the BMW to the gardeners' market. But things are changing. Local markets are a good thing and I see more people walking and riding their bikes every Saturday at mine. When gas prices go up, and they will, even more will be walking to their local markets. Both doomsday rants and head-in-the-sand mentality when it comes to our dependence on fossil fuels are non-productive. Polarization of any issue is non-productive (just look at our elected leaders). I think we should be looking far down the road, perhaps even 25 years ahead.

Why are these idiots drilling in the deep waters of the gulf causing oil spills if they could extract the easy, safe and plentiful oil elsewhere. I just don't understand why they take the risk and the tremendous cost to drill in difficult to get to places like the Gulf or Alaska. Are the oil companies just stupid, do they look for a challenge or is the safe and easy oil not as plentiful as some on this blog like to portray it? Could someone please enlighten me?

” I just don't understand why they take the risk and the tremendous cost to drill in difficult to get to places like the Gulf or Alaska. Are the oil companies just stupid, do they look for a challenge or is the safe and easy oil not as plentiful as some on this blog like to portray it?”

Most of the known remaining on-shore conventional oil resources are off limits to private sector oil companies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_oil_supplies

” According to consulting firm PFC Energy, only 7% of the world's estimated oil and gas reserves are in countries that allow private international companies free rein. Fully 65% are in the hands of state-owned companies such as Saudi Aramco, with the rest in countries such as Russia and Venezuela, where access by Western companies is difficult. The PFC study implies political factors are limiting capacity increases in Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Russia. Saudi Arabia is also limiting capacity expansion, but because of a self-imposed cap, unlike the other countries.[1] As a result of not having access to countries amenable to oil exploration, ExxonMobil is not making nearly the investment in finding new oil that it did in 1981.[2]”

I got back to 1830 and still the sentiment was being used. In fact, the poet and historian Thomas Macaulay was already sick of it then: `We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason.’ He continued: `On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us.’http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-ridley/down-with-doom-how-the-wo_b_630792.html

Thanks JD. I too have been following the Peak Oil situation since early 2004. I could spend half a limetime relating some of the BS I heard on PeakOil.com in those days, especially from that twat Savinar.

I hope all the survivalist nutters who went to ground back then are now looking out from their bunkers and saying "Gee, look everyone else is still enjoying life, is it 2010 already?". Hey Pops, I'm looking at you!

As to the TheOilDrum, what a shambles, have they no shame? Jeff Brown seems to be off licking wounds at the minute though, probably for the best. And who the hell made that retard Gail the font of all knowledge there?

Enough of that though, good to see you're still around JD, I look forward to a post sometime in 2015: 10 years since Peak Oil, is TEOTWAWKI still just around the corner? I think we all know what the answer will be...

While I understand JD's disatisfaction with the most "doomer" of petroleum and energy writers out there, I disagree with his sneering dismissal of the warnings. Just because things haven't gone south in the last five years does not mean they will not in the future.

I believe we are seeing a slowdown in demand here in the developed world due to three things: the 2008-present world wide recession which has made costly trips in the SUV not worth it, enviromental and economic awareness causing a slow but steady move to hybrid and other more fuel efficent vehicles and the close ties between Middle Eastern oil states like Saudi Arabia and the West.

Still to think there is a "Peak Demand" in oil everywhere is ridiculous. I am no expert but it's probable that the shortfall in demand in North America is being eclipsed by demand in the developing nations like China and India.

Peak Oil is still a threat just not in the immediate, short term. What I and many doomers worry about is a collapse in production the near future (2015-2030)leading to energy scarcity and a reliance on coal, thereby only momentarily delaying the enevitable collapse in fossil fuels at a cost of massive enviromental damage. To replace petroleum as both an energy source and a synthetic base will take a huge overhall of the world's industrial and economic infrastructure. Not something that can be done overnight or without the political will and economic cost.

Due to a falling off pattern of consumption in OECD, Peak Demand has become a reality. Despite 6.7-mbd of surplus capacity, there are few takers in an environment of 4% global GDP.

A new production quarterly record was set in Q1. And another in Q2 (86.0-mbd). A new monthly record will be set in January, and 2010 is on pace to set a new annual record. There will be many more...

But my PS-2200 model was revised to encompass a Peak Demand factor this month. At this juncture, it appears spare capacity will peak at 7.5-mbd in 2012, but there is a real possibility that it may never exhaust due to feigning Demand.

If acceptance of potential Peak Demand becomes widespread among stakeholders, the prospect can become self-fulfilling as producers pull back on low margin megaprojects and refining capacity.

My monthly model updates will pare back Peak Rate (from 102-mbd) 'til the trend of real falling Demand reverses. This trimming will manifest in a very long plateau...

@Robert86 - You are repeating doomer nonsense. I don't worry at all that Chinese "middle class" will start driving Hummers anytime soon - they don't have the money. What they're trading their bicycles in for is E-bikes and E-scooters (over 100 million so far). And although they may use a little coal, they use NO OIL.

Also, any projection of oil use into the future should take into consideration that full size highway capable EVs are already in mass production now.

And with regards to non-fossil fuel infrastructure, parts of Europe are already 100% renewable now. So yes it is possible to ramp up renewables long before fossil fuels become scarce 1,000 years from now.

Of all the things in the world to worry about, energy production should be the last on everyone's list.

I'm disappointed by the response from the doomers so far. I mean, bleating on about how environmentally damaging oil production is (nothing new there) is a huge step backwards from proclamations that the "end is nigh" because Saudi Arabia are all but dry and the ELM will result in no oil left for the big consumers like the USA? Whatever happened to all that?

Savinar was banging on about being "bitch slapped back to the stone age" 6 years ago. What's the worst the doomers can moan about now? An oil spill (not even a big one by historical standards) and a bit of toxic mess in Canada.

How can this site debunk something that is a physical, geological fact? Was Hubbert wrong about the US peak? NO! So, why would you think that this law of physical resource limitation doesn't also apply to the world? You guys are a bunch of idiots. You probably also believe in abiotic foolishness where carbon can be formed from inorganic substrates. Total stupidity.

The only "evidence" I see on this site is in trying to discredit those at the forefront of the message.. Simmons, Savinar, etc. without actually showing us some scientific rationale for why peak oil is wrong. Discrediting the messenger is much easier than actually trying to prove them wrong. Classic way to deflect the truth.

The 628 billion reserves in 1974 has grown to many times that by 2010. Yet we have been using more and more oil for all that time. The error peak oilers make is assuming proved reserves is all that there is. Check out the Scientific American article if you want an in depth scientific explanation. The bottom line is really very simple - the world has a lot more oil than the peak oil nuts thought it had.

"The bottom line is really very simple - the world has a lot more oil than the peak oil nuts thought it had."

It's only that simple if you're a simpleton. The reality is that whatever oil remains is much harder to safely extract and transport than it once was. And the real problem for westerners is that most of the oil is not underneath the world's biggest oil (ab)user - the Empire of the United States of America.

Well, if there's so much oil remaining, then why are we resorting to having to drill 3 miles under the seafloor under record pressures? Why are we drilling so deep to get at lower quality oil? The reason why BP skirted safety rules and hurried production for the Horizon rig was because we are desperate to get at the oil to maintain economic growth. It's just no longer possible.

Also, I noted the disclaimer at the top and at least see that you guys aren't stating that peak oil isn't real so my apologies.

BUT, I do believe that we reached peak in 2005 or at least are riding the plateu before final depletion. The current economic problems are ultimately due to peak oil and the $140 barrel oil from 2008.

I'm curious as to when you "debunked" guys think we will peak if not now?

@Chuck - Perhaps a better question then "when will we peak" is "why will we peak". I think the answer is we will peak because of lowered demand, not lack of supply. Even Colin Campbell is coming around to "peak demand". Think about it, if oil peaked because of supply, the price would not have gone back down to $30/barrel. That was a classic unwinding of speculative positions. The only reason oil went back up to $70 is because OPEC cut production to jack up the price. Hardcore doomers like to proclaim there are no alternatives to oil, but of course there are. And that is why oil production will eventually fall, IMO.

"Well, if there's so much oil remaining, then why are we resorting to having to drill 3 miles under the seafloor under record pressures? "

Read higher up in the blog, this has already been answered.

And please, I was drilling at deeper depths and higher pressures back in the early 90's, for BP, and in the GOM. Lets try not and reveal how little actual experience peak oilers have in this regard, ummm? Repeating the nonsense endlessly passed around in doomerville can't withstand my nearly 2 decades removed drilling experience, let alone what modern drilling engineers are capable of.

The column you would be interested in is the "Ave" column (the average annualized inflation for the year shown).

So, inflation for

2005 was approx. 3.39%2006 was approx. 3.24%2007 was approx. 2.85%2008 was approx. 3.85%2009 was approx. -0.34%

So, Mr. Tierney is giving Mr. Simmons a drubbing by an even larger margin than the 52-week price range for a barrel of oil would suggest, since that price range is in 2009-2010 dollars.

Best wishes to all....

P.S. This may be obvious, but the monthly inflation data shown at the webpage cited above is *annualized* inflation -- e.g. the annualized inflation for the month of Jan 2010 was 2.63% -- clearly, 2.63% inflation did not occur in that month, but that was the yearly rate at which inflation occurred in that month.

SG said "So yes it is possible to ramp up renewables long before fossil fuels become scarce 1,000 years from now."

It's claims like this that make me feel just a bit more doomer. Iv'e never heard from any credible source that we have a millenium's worth of fossil fuels. If petroleum where to disappear today, I doubt the Earth would be able to supply enough natural gas and coal to make up the shortfall and meet the insatiable demand for energy. Also, where would we get enough net energy to extract said fuels without it becoming a liability?

Counter Answer = Not my point. :P Energy scarcity due to a peak in oil will happen in the next few decades and the world as of now is woefully unprepared to mitigate it. A new energy infrastructure does not pop up overnight.

I am not a doomer like Matt Savinar but I do fear the implications of peak oil and as much as I would like to believe it is nothing to worry about and toe the party line of this blog, I can't. So far JD has done good work at debunking some of the more outrageous claims (i.e. Cuba is in a peak oil state ergo we can learn from them) but only addresses the tip of the iceburg.

"Energy scarcity due to a peak in oil will happen in the next few decades and the world as of now is woefully unprepared to mitigate it. A new energy infrastructure does not pop up overnight."

That sums up the doomer position pretty well. The main reason I don't believe it is because people have always been saying that, and they've always been proved wrong. Check out Hubbert's predictions from 1974:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/natgeog.htm

With regards to alternatives popping up overnight - they do! I see new PV installations popping up in our neighborhood every day. And I just had an email pop up yesterday from Chevy trying to sell me their Volt electric car.

Working at an Exxon station doesn't make you a geologist. And an "estimate" of oil underneath Hugo Chavez's Venezuela doesn't mean shit if the morons at BP can't extract it without spilling it."

I'm not a geologist, I'm a petroleum engineer, but between research experience, publications and presentations I bump into them more than most. And the estimate I referenced had nothing to do with BP, only the concept that while JD was away, the experts in resource assessments roughed in the technically recoverable size of the Orinoco. And they are geologists.

Matt claimed to have become the owner/manager of a brick and mortar business establishment earlier this year, no, not dedicated to selling Doomer supplies, but items which only rich yuppies appreciate, like aroma-therapy. He has currently said that he is doing consultations so he can buy a nice, non Doomstead non fixer upper house in the area of suburbia where he lives. Sound very Doomer to you, or just another peak oil profiteer?

I think the main error of this blog is that it treats doomerism as a rational philosophy in need of refutation. But doomerism is not a rational philosophy. Doomerism is an emotionally held conviction which is not based on rational argumentation.

There are basically two types of doomers, as follows.

First, there are "cult doomers" who are group-oriented people that feel desperately alienated in our individualist society. They desperately want a return to a society which is more local, less complicated, more rooted, more socially cohesive, and less individualist. For them, doomerism is an extravagent and emotional hope of a promised future; a hope which they will cling to, no matter what. This type of doomer talks with glee about the upcoming destruction of civilization. He wants a rapid end to the oil era, and its replacement with commune-living small groups of people who only interact locally.

To these people, doomerism is a doomsday cult, with all the characteristic features. It's different from other doomsday cults, in that it has a very thin veneer of science. But at bottom, it's no different from other little groups of people that have always been with us, and who believe the end is imminent. It posits that the end of the world is near, that a new future awaits, but only for believers, and so on. PO Doomerism has given these people reason to believe that their feelings are scientifically plausible.

There is also another type of doomer, the "anxiety doomer". These doomers appear to have some kind of anxiety neurosis. These doomers always believe the world is coming to an end, and are terrified by it, for similar reasons that the hypochondriac always believes he has fatal diseases and is terrified by it. This type of doomer will hoard food and make preparations in order to survive, because they feel their lives are threatened. This type of doomer has been through it before; he has usually believed in end-of-the-world scenarios previously (many of them were survivalists during the 1980s and bought ammunition in anticipation of Y2K). Usually, this type of doomer is under considerable psychological stress as a result of his beliefs.

Both types of doomers are not being rational. The first type (cult doomers) are members of a small new cult, although they don't call it that. The second type are neurotics who are having unrealistic anxiety issues. Neither arrived at their position through logical argumentation.

The one thing to remember, when dealing with doomers, is that you are not dealing with rational people. You won't talk them out of it, any more than you could convince a hypochondriac to stop worrying, or convince a cultist to leave his group. Even if you did talk them out of it, they would just pick another doomer scenario.

Our society has had one of these doomer-type phenomena every decade (survivalism during the '80s, Y2k during the '90s, PO doomerism during the 00's). Another doomer scenario will be forthcoming, after PO doomerism has faded away.

Don't get me wrong; this website serves a useful purpose. This website could be therapeutic for the anxiety doomers, who may relax when they see evidence that the world is not ending soon. It may serve the same function to them, as going to the physician serves to the hypochondriac: they can be reassured that they are not dying.

But I hope the author of this website doesn't think that doomerism can be defeated. There have been little doomsday cults that have come and gone for thousands of years (and frankly, PO doomerism has weaker reasoning than most of them). There have always been people who've been disaffected by civilization and want a return to little agricultural or hunter/gatherer groups of people. Those people are not going away. Neither are people with unrealistic anxiety.

Matt claimed to have become the owner/manager of a brick and mortar business establishment earlier this year, no, not dedicated to selling Doomer supplies, but items which only rich yuppies appreciate, like aroma-therapy... Sound very Doomer to you, or just another peak oil profiteer?

From what I gather, Matt was really a doomer in the early 2000's. Apparently he's not a doomer any more. He probably changed his mind when he figured out, sometime in the last 7 years, that his imminent end-of-the-world scenario hadn't happened.

It's true - he was genuine, my understanding of Savinar in 2004 was that he was naive and quite confused. He seemed to see everything in a lawyers way, (a failed lawyer at that) and didn't understand that the world of law is very different from the way the real world works.

It's good to hear he's come to his senses and gone and done something vaguely useful with his life!

p.s. Anon a.k.a. John, your portrayal of the Peak Oil doomer types is spot on. I made a post on po.com many years ago equating the obsession with peak oil to y2k, belief in aliens (of the little grey men variety) and other wacko nonsense. Needless to say nobody on that forum agreed with me!

From what I gather, Matt was really a doomer in the early 2000's. Apparently he's not a doomer any more. He probably changed his mind when he figured out, sometime in the last 7 years, that his imminent end-of-the-world scenario hadn't happened.

I don't think he was insincere or just a profiteer all the way long.

I think that the guy who originally wrote www.dieoff.com had a similar change of heart. Last he published he was living a fairly normal life in Hawaii as a computer professional.

Another thing about Matt Savinar was that he was taken in by a very clever psychopathic wack job named Mike Ruppert. Savinar thought Ruppert was his messiah, but apparently he's seen Ruppert as the unhinged wack-job that he really is.

"It’s not as if Congress didn’t know the risks. Its own research arm, which issues frequent spill-response readiness assessments, has repeatedly cited a 2004 Coast Guard study finding that its “oil spill response personnel did not appear to have even a basic knowledge of the equipment required to support salvage or spill clean-up operations.” Nevertheless, lawmakers failed to act aggressively to ensure adequate oversight.

When I first heard of peak oil, I somehow ended up reading JHK's Rolling Stone article on what he calls the Long Emergency. I was more than a bit freaked out. When I managed to find this blog, it helped ease my "anxiety" quite a bit.

I'm not aware of any reliable debunking of this. I try not to bother with the usual global warming deniers/delayers because of their brazenly anti-scientific bias (and the part where many of the studies they cite as proving that global warming isn't happening/isn't a problem are conducted by organizations that are known to be funded by fossil fuel corporations). If anyone knows of anything that proves Mark Lynas wrong, I'd like to know.

Is it a reflection of my own neuroses that I keep finding reasons to worry about the state of the world?

I read Matt Ridley's HuffPo article, Down with Doom: How the World Keeps Defying the Predictions of Pessimists, that LoneSnark referred to. I think people like Matt Ridley (and JD to a certain extent) may be missing something here: maybe the only way to avoid disaster is to see it coming at you, become understandably terrified, and then do whatever you can to keep it from becoming a reality. The only reason Y2K, for instance, is such a joke now is because people were sufficiently scared into action.

I mean, I know that some people like Matt Savinar have found fear-mongering quite lucrative, and people like Kunstler obviously have a perverse desire to see modernity collapse, but some "doomers" are just genuinely worried. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, right?

I'm not aware of any reliable debunking of this. I try not to bother with the usual global warming deniers/delayers because of their brazenly anti-scientific bias (and the part where many of the studies they cite as proving that global warming isn't happening/isn't a problem are conducted by organizations that are known to be funded by fossil fuel corporations). If anyone knows of anything that proves Mark Lynas wrong, I'd like to know.

Not all AGW skeptics are anti-scientific. Some of them just think that IPCC is overestimating the effects of CO2 on temperature. The earth’s climate is a complex system that is affected be many factors other than atmospheric CO2 levels.

@Amanda - If you're serious about studying both sides of the climate debate, your'e gonna have to spend some time on it. Climate science is a complex issue. I would recommend this site:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

For me, I don't worry about AGW because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small (.003 parts). And 95% of CO2 is produced naturally. These facts and a little common sense tells us there's nothing to worry about.

With regards to climate scientist predictions - they have had to redo their graphs several times over the years. The warming that they predicted never happened (sounds a lot like peak oil eh?). They've also had their models exposed (through private emails made public) as jury rigging the numbers. Al Gore and others have made A LOT of money on the hype.

The bottom line is that the amount of CO2 humans add to atmosphere is very small. And it's not clear what effect (if any) this has on the climate.

I agree that there are more sources of oil out there. Peak oil doesn't mean that the oil will run out tomorrow. It's that the RATE OF EXTRACTION will fall.

Tar sands have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, BUT if you have to dig it out or add solvents directly into the formations, then it will take longer and cost more to be profitable.. YES?

The size of the newer discoveries have been gradually falling in size. There are NO MORE mega fields of easily accessible (READ "CHEAP") light crude left.

The problem is that the rate of extraction can't possible keep up with the exponential growth of population and the economy. It just isn't possible.

Even if you believe that peak oil is a couple decades away, then wouldn't it make sense to get moving on getting alternatives going right NOW and have a "manhandle project" or "Apollo moon landing" type effort at getting it going? That's the level of effort we will be needed.

I'm afraid that we don't have the time OR the money now that we've entered this deflationary spiral.

@Chuck - Definately more could be done to promote renewables. Especially considering the current high unemployment rates. R.E. Obama could move the blend wall with the stroke of a pen. This would create thousands of new jobs and reduce oil imports. Our leaders are just not very creative.

"Matt Simmons and I have 5000 that says you've never published anything other than your high school yearbook."

Acceptable terms. I will provide JD, if he is willing, with 3 documents. You can provide him with $5000.

My 3 documents will be a publisher reprint of, say, my article in the International Journal of Coal Geology, a business card with my name and position and place of employment to check against the bio information on the article, and a copy of my photo ID from work showing where I work. He can verify that the email address is the same, my name is the same in all places, he can google up my other work (I have peer reviewed work published not in journals as well), he can call me at the phone number listed or mailing address given on the information provided and when he is satisfied that the publication is mine, he can send along the $4900, keeping $100 for acting as an objective 3rd party to the wager. Assuming he is interested of course. He can even blog about it if he'd like, I'm sure he'll have questions after he finds out who I am. I only request he keep my name and where I work private.

Peakers might be dumb enough to enjoy the attention internet stalkers provide, but I do not.

That sums up the doomer position pretty well. The main reason I don't believe it is because people have always been saying that, and they've always been proved wrong. Check out Hubbert's predictions from 1974:

@SG Hubbert predicted that the US would peak around 1970 and he was absolutely correct! Just look at any chart of US production rates and you can see it plain as day.

The oil shocks and gas lines of the early 70's were caused by this peak and the inability of the US to switch over to more imported oil from the mid-east due to politics surrounding the the Arab/ Israeli conflict.

The only reason that the gas lines weren't permanent is because we eventually started kissing OPEC's ass enough to get the oil flowing again. Imported oil has been taking up the slack ever since then.

Now, when the world production peaks and demand catches up with supply, then you will truly have permanent gas lines and rationing along with $5 + per gallon gas.

This may be a good time to buy a Chevy Volt while they're still relatively cheap! At least we'll have coal and nuclear for a few more decades.

@Chuck - Hubbert wasn't exactly correct in his predictions. He predicted a sharp decline in US production, which never happened. Also, 80% of the US offshore, ANWR, and oil shale are off limits because of politics - NOT a lack of supply. If all these resources were opened up, production could top the 1970 peak.

Also, his prediction for world oil peak was way off:

"'THE END OF THE OIL AGE is in sight,' says U.S. petroleum geologist M. King Hubbert.... If present trends continue, Dr. Hubbert estimates, production will peak in 1995 -- the deadline for alternative forms of energy that must replace petroleum in the sharp drop-off that follows."

2008 world production exceeded production in 1995. And we will most likely see additional increases in the future.

When do you think oil (from all sources) will peak? Is it imminent, in your opinion? Is it decades away? How much oil do you think remains to be extracted at today's prices? What about at $120/bbl?

The reason I ask, is because you apparently have some background in oil extraction. That's rare on PO forums, as you know. In fact, I've never encountered anyone who actually had some background in oil extraction and who discusses peak oil. So I'd like to know your opinion.

I'm a student of economics, which is a field held in very low regard by doomers (and, admittedly, by many others).

I'm quite convinced that our current society is awash in oil. I believe we have far more oil than is necessary for the continuation of industrial society, even in the short term. I believe that we could withstand a rapid and drastic reduction of oil supplies without any disruption to the core functions of industrial society. I believe that the only result of declining oil supplies will be modestly higher prices for transportation and for some other things, and perhaps a recession if the adjustment doesn't go smoothly.

However, my background is in economics, as I said, and not in oil extraction or geology. Although I can estimate the effects of a reduction of oil supplies, I cannot estimate when that reduction will occur, or how rapidly, since that is far outside my area of expertise.

PO doomerism has two parts: 1) a theory about when oil will peak and how quickly it will decline; and 2) an economic theory about the probable consequences to civilization of that decline.

"I cannot estimate when that reduction will occur, or how rapidly, since that is far outside my area of expertise."

Don't feel too bad, it's far outside the expertise of anyone reading this. JD and RGR are myopically focused on the amount of oil that (they speculate) still remains in the earth regardless of whose land its under or how hard it is to extract. The "doomers" are more interested in the geo-political parts of the puzzle, the black swans that could stop production, stop distribution, or the economics that crush demand.

If RGR had indeed published anything worth reading he would have long since put links to it here or in some other right-wing forum.

Hubberts estimate on nuclear ran into multiple millennium. Why do Peakers, so eager to use a single estimate of his which worked (versus all the others which didn't), ignore the solutions he provided in the exact same paper?

Unlike peakers, who have made a career out of editing comments at their websites, banning those who don't instantly buy into the groupthink and doing their best to make certain that dissent is squashed and critical thinking discouraged, I have a personal philosophy that demands I listen to everyone, regardless of how stupid, ignorant, crazy or mentally ill they are. Even trolls. It is obvious that Anonyweasel fits the mold of a standard peaker when confronted by reality, the name calling, attacking the messenger, lack of knowledge about any of the particulars, all the usual stuff.

JD's site is great reference material, I've recommended it more than once at levels beyond what peaker-pinheads can possibly imagine.

When do you think oil (from all sources) will peak? Is it imminent, in your opinion? Is it decades away? How much oil do you think remains to be extracted at today's prices? What about at $120/bbl?

Peak oil is primarily an interesting industry factoid and not much more. We've already been through global peak oils (1979) and corresponding declines. As far as oil remaining, the volumes from experts range between 2 and 4 trillion more barrels, the uncertainty not revolving around its existence, but around the price required to extract it all. Maybe $120 covers it, maybe not.

The reason I ask, is because you apparently have some background in oil extraction. That's rare on PO forums, as you know. In fact, I've never encountered anyone who actually had some background in oil extraction and who discusses peak oil.

I have more than a decades industry experience as a petroleum engineer, and more as a research scientist in fossil fuel issues. Hanging out in internet forums is generally considered "slumming" where I come from, last year my work was presented on 3 different continents, 2 international conferences and 1 national. This year, you could have found me giving a talk at this years AAPG National in New Orleans, I'll be doing a presentation in Canada at an international conference in September, and I turned down an invitation to present in Beijing. Peakers do not have the courage of their convictions, they ban me on sight when I sign up at their websites. Gutless wonders would be a better description of them perhaps?

As far as your desire to solve #1, its quite a complex question, which rules out searching peak oil forums for any insight. Stick to published research of all flavors, and work from that, forget about anything useful from peak oil forums.

If RGR had indeed published anything worth reading he would have long since put links to it here or in some other right-wing forum.

Let me guess, a regular on the peaker forums which can't stand the light of day! And suddenly aren't waving around $5000 anymore either, apparently.

Are you one of the racists JD recently exposed at PO.com, or one of the crackpot alien takeover theorists from Savinars joint? Collapsenet perhaps? The world is ending this summer, shouldn't you be reading "Amish for Dummies" or something to prepare?

"Why do Peakers, so eager to use a single estimate of his which worked (versus all the others which didn't), ignore the solutions he provided in the exact same paper?"

They don't! Anyone who's genuinely interested in nuclear has to ask what will be done with the waste, how the nuclear arms proliferation will be handled, how Chernobyls and Three Mile Islands will be avoided. Sure, unfettered nuclear could produce lots of power for a long time. What you "experts" ignore are the pesky externalities.

"The world is ending this summer, shouldn't you be reading "Amish for Dummies" or something to prepare?"

Just post a link to these articles you've published and be done with it, you pathetic chickenshit. No one concerned with "internet stalkers" would be in this pathetic forum to begin with. Get a life. Buy a clue, get one with it or shout the hell up.

"It is obvious that Anonyweasel fits the mold of a standard peaker when confronted by reality"

Hilarious! A character named 'ReserveGrowthRulz' is harping on anonymity. And this after (s)he has the temerity to suggest "Stick to published research of all flavors, and work from that, forget about anything useful from peak oil forums."

What hypocrisy! Follow your own advice! Absolutely nothing useful has come from your anonymous whining or this forum, that is one indisputable fact.

Hubberts presentation in 1956 was about an assessment of available fuel and how long that fuel might last, be it fossil fuels or nuclear. Others, more experienced in the external issues you mentioned, and the economics of them, can use his assessment to begin making models, designing strategies and structures and policies to handle them, etc etc.

This multi part approach is quite common, for example USGS assessments have been used by the EIA (and ASPO) for calculating rates and infrastructure needs for a given area, or even the globe. Hirsch in his 2005 DOE reports talks about just how this happens, if you are interested in an example.

Well, BP's cap is holding - for now. The relief wells should be completed in August, and if the Cap stays true, then it will appear that our good friend Matt Simmons will have crapped out YET AGAIN! Shortly after the well started leaking, he said the well could spew oil for 24 years:

And of course... let's not forget that Simmons was one of the first to advocate using a nuke to seal the well shut:

http://www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=13568

Kudos to JD for sniffing out the bit of having to "evacuate the Gulf states." I missed that one.

Now, before the peakers jump down my throat, I'll promptly indicate that I'm NOT a peak oil denier; rather, I'm in the camp that believes that peak oil will result in either a prolonged production platue, or a slow decline - non-OPEC's own crude oil peak and decline indicates this: http://www.peakoil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/2009_July_Oilwatch_Monthly.pdf

Ultimately, I think JD has brought a wonderful balance to what's been normally a lop-sided debate (Consider the # of peak oil sites; now Google for sites advocating the other side of the argument. Get the picture>), and he's conjured a long list of material proving Simmons lost his crediability long ago. Recently, I've been starting to see more and more people question Simmons; JD was way ahead of the curve with this!

Hubbert wasn't exactly correct in his predictions. He predicted a sharp decline in US production, which never happened. Also, 80% of the US offshore, ANWR, and oil shale are off limits because of politics - NOT a lack of supply. If all these resources were opened up, production could top the 1970 peak.

@SG - Yes, you're right that the drop in US production has been more gradual. The reason for this is that we were able to suck off of the imported teat to make up the difference. The amount of imported oil we use in now 70%.

Although I think your estimates are a little high for how much oil can be extracted per day out of ANWR (I've heard somewhere around 700K barrels / day, not exactly a game changer... more like a 30second timeout), I do think we should wait to drill there until we really need it desperately. The more oil we keep near our shores the longer... the better for our national security.

I think the falloff from the world peak will be much sharper OR demand will be crushed and the economy will implode (my money's on the latter).

Well, BP's cap is holding - for now. The relief wells should be completed in August, and if the Cap stays true, then it will appear that our good friend Matt Simmons will have crapped out YET AGAIN!

@fartmaster

You should recheck the news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100719/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

The pressures are too low compared to what they expected. They are leveling off at around 6700 psi compared to the 8000 psi they expected. There is a side leak just as Simmons has been saying for weeks.

"The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying."

This came out almost a year ago. Why is anyone relying on official figures anymore?

”The pressures are too low compared to what they expected. They are leveling off at around 6700 psi compared to the 8000 psi they expected. There is a side leak just as Simmons has been saying for weeks.”

Here’s the latest update:

”July 20 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc plans to keep its Macondo oil well in the Gulf of Mexico shut today after the U.S. government found that leaks at the site pose no threat. The escape of methane gas is “inconsequential,” and pressure inside the well is slowly rising, a positive sign that BP won’t need to reopen it and discharge more oil, National Incident Commander Thad Allen said yesterday at a press conference. A seep 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) away isn’t from the well, he said.”

”This came out almost a year ago. Why is anyone relying on official figures anymore?”

This was discussed on a previous thread shortly after it came out. If you look at the graph near the top of the article you will see that the IEA has already implicitly acknowledged that conventional oil production is close to peaking. Most of the increased production in their forecast comes from natural gas liquids and unconventional oil.

In other words, buyers may go to alternatives, and demand for oil will shrivel. It may mark the passing of the oil era, and I say good riddance.

Higher living standards and cleaner air are ahead.

@Benny

My first question is what alternatives will buyers go to that will be close to the energy content of oil? Coal? Alternative energy provides very little net power at large cost due to infrastructure changes and maintenance.

The air may be cleaner but I wouldn't look for an improvement in living standards, at least economic ones.

Our industrialized globalized way of life is coming to an end. We will all be going back to a much simpler way of life. In this sense, it is good.

Unfortunately, the transition will not be pleasant as people see that everything they believed was permanent is actually transitory (cheap energy, affordable suburban housing, etc.).

I suggest everyone read "Blackout" by Richard Heinberg. Very sober assessment of our remaining coal production. Things are going to change very soon with regards to the reliability of electricity supply.

"Our industrialized globalized way of life is coming to an end. We will all be going back to a much simpler way of life. In this sense, it is good."

I think that's a big part of the doomer mindset. A longing to return for a simpler way of life. Unfortunately for you, thats not going to happen. You can't stop progress. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

With regards to alternatives - where I live, solar PV is already cheaper than fossil fuel electricity. Hybrid sales are up. 2011 Nissan EV sales are already accounted for. Gasoline consumption is down 9% over last year. We are now at 19% renewable. New technologies are already replacing fossil fuels. Quit reading doomer nonsense books.

Chuck-In Europe and Japan, oil consumption has been falling for 30 years, even while per capita incomes have risen. They have made great headway environmentally too. We have shale gas up our rear ends to the moon, and you can run a car on CNG, or methanol (made from gas).You have PHEVs, and BEVs. France and Japan will be nuked up totally in 10 years, and run PHEVs and BEVs. Or, you can buy a car that get 60 mpg, but run a little scooter on other days when the weather is nice.Really, we have seen again and again oil demand declines after price spikes, and then keep going down for years. Given that we have cleaner alternatives now, I wish for higher oil prices forever, but that does not yet seem in the cards.

”My first question is what alternatives will buyers go to that will be close to the energy content of oil? Coal? Alternative energy provides very little net power at large cost due to infrastructure changes and maintenance.”

When considering the energy content of fossil fuels it is important to remember that most of that energy content ends up as waste heat. Many alternatives either do not produce significant waste heat (e.g. wind, hydro and photovoltaics), or else the waste heat they do produce is not counted in the official statistics on total marketed primary energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy

It should also be noted that replacing internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles improves the thermodynamic efficiency of transport from 10-20% to 70-90%. This means that simply looking at the primary energy content of fossil fuels overstates the magnitude of the problem of replacing them with alternatives.

”I suggest everyone read "Blackout" by Richard Heinberg. Very sober assessment of our remaining coal production. Things are going to change very soon with regards to the reliability of electricity supply.”

I haven’t read the book, but the impression I got from reading this review:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5662

and from listening to this interview:

http://www.financialsensearchive.com/Experts/2009/Heinberg.html

was that Heinberg does not really understand mineral classification, specifically the difference between “ reserves” and “resources”.

The important thing to remember about reserve/production ratios is that the term “proven reserves” is actually a very conservative estimate of how much of a mineral resource is ultimately recoverable, and this goes for coal as much as for most minerals.

In order for a mineral deposit to be classified as a proven reserve there must be detailed geological evidence on its extent and it must be economically extractable under current business and regulatory conditions.

Improvements in geological knowledge and extraction technologies usually have a way of increasing reserve estimates over time, as has recently occurred with the development of shale gas production..

Careful, RGR. If you keep up this selfless sharing of all your expertise and those invaluable links to all your scholarly published research, some doomer is likely to stalk you.

Hey! You wouldn't be the welching peaker weasel who ducks out on bets are you?

Sorry, I've been busy writing another scholarly article (and I found an old one I did in Natural Resources Research earlier in the decade and forgot about) and its distracting, what with peak oil causing disruption, shortages, and the oncoming evacuation of the gulf coast because someone listened to an accountant when they shouldn't have. Its nice to see that even internet "experts" can see through this guy now. JD should update this entry in the blog to add donkey ears to his Simmons picture.

"Hey! You wouldn't be the welching peaker weasel who ducks out on bets are you?"

I'm still waiting for "JD" - whoever he or she may be - to volunteer to act as intermediary for that "bet."

It must be soul-crushing for a big name writer like yourself to have to hang out here using a lame pseudonym. A person of your obvious wealth and stature can surely afford a bodyguard to fend off the doomer stalkers.

It must be soul-crushing for a big name writer like yourself to have to hang out here using a lame pseudonym.

Oh, you obviously confuse those of us who do peer reviewed science with "big name writers", quite inaccurate (expected, considering your peakerness I suppose).

I just noticed a sure fire way to make $5000 ...hey...peakers are dumb enough to fall for Rupperts incessant pleas for cash, no reason I can't benefit from that same ignorance spilling over into a sure thing.

Even a "casual observer" can tell that we have not reached a peak in oil production as a result of insufficient oil resources. OPEC cutting production in order to jack up the price is quite a bit different than falling production from oil well depletion.

"Even a "casual observer" can tell that we have not reached a peak in oil production as a result of insufficient oil resources."

And those same "casual observers" can tell that that peak is peak - it doesn't matter if peak if brought on by insufficient resources, geopolitics or an asteroid hitting the earth. Buy a clue, dumbass.

"And those same "casual observers" can tell that that peak is peak - it doesn't matter if peak if brought on by insufficient resources, geopolitics or an asteroid hitting the earth. Buy a clue, dumbass."

I think what he means is that the peak could be because of the economic collapse and credit crisis and demand dropped so oil production and investment collapsed. dumbass.

All of your "work" except for the fertilizer you spread here on POD. Given the quality of the "work" you dispense here, you'll forgive those of us who think of you as just another schmuck who read a magazine article about peak oil while waiting at JiffyLube.

Olive oil is very well tolerated by the stomach. In fact, olive oil's protective function has a beneficial effect on ulcers and gastritis. Olive oil activates the secretion of bile and pancreatic hormones much more naturally than prescribed drugs.

"And those same "casual observers" can tell that that peak is peak - it doesn't matter if peak if brought on by insufficient resources, geopolitics or an asteroid hitting the earth. Buy a clue, dumbass."

Dear dumbass,

It certainly DOES matter what caused the "peak". Insufficient resources is the centerpiece of the "peak oil" theory. For doomers to latch on to the drop in production during this current worldwide recession, is an act of desperation. Desperation to prove their theories, graphs, and predictions correct, when obviously they were wrong. And have been proved wrong through actual events.

Bullshit. It might be the centerpiece of somebody's "peak oil" theory, but it is by no means any kind of official theory. Your bullshit is right in line with anonymous blowhards like RGR and JD who seem to think they're doing the world a favor by nit-picking the fringy bullshit from a tiny handful of people writing purely speculative pieces for their own amusement.

For anyone who's paying attention - peak oil production is peak oil production, doesn't matter what causes it - the outcome is basically the same whether it comes from economic collapse, demand peak, natural disaster or actually burning through half of some guesstimate of "reserves" regardless of which crackpot "petroleum engineer" guesses it.

"For anyone who's paying attention - peak oil production is peak oil production, doesn't matter what causes it - the outcome is basically the same whether it comes from economic collapse, demand peak, natural disaster or actually burning through half of some guesstimate of "reserves" regardless of which crackpot "petroleum engineer" guesses it."

Tow that line Doomer,

Perhaps if you had a few more brain cells, you could think ahead to when the world comes out of recession. I know that's hard for the doomer to think that's going to happen, but it always has happened. And when (not if) it happens, demand will rise, then production will rise. And your beloved peak will become just another in a very long line of peaks. Then the doomers will look like even bigger idiots than they look like now. So enjoy that peak while it lasts!

"Perhaps if you had a few more brain cells, you could think ahead to when the world comes out of recession."

Ah, now I see one reason you seem so pathetically stupid; you've assumed that because a few "doomers" think we are at or near peak, then everyone, including me, who disagrees with your pontifications believes the same thing. But you'll notice I never said we are at or near peak, only that is doesn't really matter what "causes" the peak, whenever it might be officially declared and accepted by all. Doesn't matter if it's peak demand or peak resources, or global war or global famine - peak is peak.

Sure, we'll come out of this recession, eventually. With enough artificial stimulus, any system can be made to 'grow' or appear healthier. What cracks me up about this little cult of "debunking" is how shallow and cruel the logic underlying the whole flimsy endeavor really is - the only way to really end the recession is to get rid of the leverage and let the over-leveraged fail, which means a lot of real pain for a lot of real people. Only then can the system begin real sustainable growth. The only way it makes sense to develop new oil and new technologies is if the market will support it, and right now the only way the market can support it is with artificial stimulus a massive police force in the Persian Gulf, which has to ultimately result in hyper-inflationary malaise.

So, just be aware of what you're wishing for debunkers, because you deserve to get it.

All of your "work" except for the fertilizer you spread here on POD. Given the quality of the "work" you dispense here, you'll forgive those of us who think of you as just another schmuck who read a magazine article about peak oil while waiting at JiffyLube.

Better call quick and get me thrown out!

http://www.aapg.org/calgary/

We can't have Jiffy Lube experts (whose only real expertise is spotting welching peakers when we see them) talking to anyone else!

AAPG national abstracts for Houston 2011 are due by mid-September, you better get cracking if you hope to get them to finally not accept one of mine! I'm about 10-0 so far. Now run back to groupthink land....you might hurt a neuron reading JDs blog.

Then the doomers will look like even bigger idiots than they look like now. So enjoy that peak while it lasts!

Doomer groupthink is legion, bordering on zealotry, and generally only matched by their ability to ignore yesterdays bad predictions in favor of tomorrows. It isn't a surprise they look like idiots anymore, whats a surprise is that there are any left dumb enough to not realize it and continue the same old tired routines.

'Debunkers' are the goodies, 'doomers' are the baddies. These ridiculous labels and ad hom attacks on cherry-picked sources detract from real issues such as environmental degradation, pollution, over consumption, over population, water shortage, food shortage - the list goes on. These are real issues!

This site purely serves the delusional individuals who think that they are somehow changing the world by arguing in a forum; whilst the real world grows ever more toxic and over-crowded you sit here drivelling away about the 'doomer' mindset.

Cue all the 'well why are you here?' responses. Simple; I'm just browsing but constantly disappointed at what I find.

'Debunkers' are the goodies, 'doomers' are the baddies. These ridiculous labels and ad hom attacks on cherry-picked sources detract from real issues such as environmental degradation, pollution, over consumption, over population, water shortage, food shortage - the list goes on. These are real issues!

This is a peak oil debunked site, not a "debunk the greens" site. Certainly the issues you mention are real, why don't you go to their website and bother them? Doomers within the peak oil context desperately wish to link their favorite wet dreams to other items, most times its just a ridiculous exercise designed to avoid talking about how poorly their forays into oil industry specifics has gone.

Cue all the 'well why are you here?' responses. Simple; I'm just browsing but constantly disappointed at what I find.

Then wander on back to ban-happy and ignorant peak oil land and enjoy the groupthink. Or become Amish already and stop wasting electrical energy posting on the internet. The internet would be a more intellectually interesting place if those with a desire to become Amish to save the world would just go out and DO it already, rather than whining at those of us who prefer a different lifestyle.

Then wander on back to ban-happy and ignorant peak oil land and enjoy the groupthink. Or become Amish already and stop wasting electrical energy posting on the internet. The internet would be a more intellectually interesting place if those with a desire to become Amish to save the world would just go out and DO it already, rather than whining at those of us who prefer a different lifestyle.

Typically 'debunker' strawman argument. This site is a classic example of sycophantic group think, mutual wankery over serious issues and once again - oh look - the binary argument. 'Youre either a technophile or Amish, no in between, no need to discuss, fingers in your ears, lalalalalalalala doomer dooommerrr!! Youre a doomer, I'm a debunker! Problems solved!'

"The best approach, in my view, is to maintain some fiscal support for the economy in the near term, but to combine that with serious attention to addressing what are very significant fiscal issues for the United States in the medium term," Mr. Bernanke said. "I don't think it's either/or. I think you need to really do both. If the debt continues to accumulate and becomes unsustainable … then the only way that can end is through a crisis or some other very bad outcome."

You don't need a name. Just tell them that whatever esteemed church of peak you belong to has determined that presenters at the AAPG national conference are known trolls and should be banned forthwith. See how much credibility your particular church has....I'd be more than happy to come up with a way to make some cash on a bet like this as well. How about we use the 2010 New Orleans convention? I'll present JD with a convention agenda and my name and ID, and if I'm in there as a presenter, you cough up another $5000? Oh, thats right, you never coughed up the first $5000 yet. To heck with the credibility of your church, right now yours isn't doing so well.

"...advocate banning someone for accidentally rubbing two neurons together and firing off a coherent thought..."

Well, you got part of your insult right - if you were to "fire off a coherent thought," it would indeed be an accident. But absolutely no one here gives the tiniest rat's ass if you are banned or unbanned or given carte blanche to write about whatever oil fantasy you've created for yourself.

What you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is that no one here, including JD, believes you're a "petroleum engineer," or that you would have something worth reading even if you WERE a petroleum engineer.

But absolutely no one here gives the tiniest rat's ass if you are banned or unbanned

Quite true. I mention it primarily as an example of a normal peaker reaction when they are confronted with ideas beyond their groupthink.

What you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is that no one here, including JD, believes you're a "petroleum engineer," or that you would have something worth reading even if you WERE a petroleum engineer.

Whatever in the world would cause you think that your belief system, or even JD's, is required to validate my professional experience? I was only willing to do it for the cash. When the IEA sends someone from Paris to talk about shale gas, they show up at my office, and put a 6 hour hole in my day. You think they picked my name out of a phone book by accident? You think I should warn them first that the Church of Peak Oil has excommunicated me as a heretic?

Whatever in the world would cause you think that your belief system, or even JD's, is required to validate my professional experience? I was only willing to do it for the cash. When the IEA sends someone from Paris to talk about shale gas, they show up at my office, and put a 6 hour hole in my day. You think they picked my name out of a phone book by accident? You think I should warn them first that the Church of Peak Oil has excommunicated me as a heretic?

The reason you are banned from other 'peaker' forums is not because you have a different viewpoint (which by the way is the same as every other cornucopian groupthink). It is because you post aggressive, troll garbage (try and reread your above nonsensical quote). Petroleum engineers wouldn't waste their time posting such infantile drivel - as you point out they are paid well. It seems like everyone in this forum that hates the 'doomers' is some sort of oil engineer. Yawn. You sound like a flabby angry teenager. Fact.

Swedish academics analysis indicates that the IEA's estimates are way off. Be sure to include that in your next debunking post JD. I think I can guess what you're gonna say so to save some time I've written some logic to help:

if (User_ID =='ARI' OR User_ID=='JD' OR User_ID == 'DB'){

if (URL_SUPPLIED != USER_POINT_OF_VIEW){Print("That source is either anonymous, wrong or too biased to be worth considering et voilà you are debunked!");}else{Print("See doooomers are so wrong and that link proves it");

Petroleum engineers wouldn't waste their time posting such infantile drivel - as you point out they are paid well.

We are well paid. But some of us have hobbies. My hobby also comes in handy when questions come in at the office related not to the science of peak, but its hysteria. Normal geoscientists don't know who the hell Ruppert is, but when someone uses his name and everyone else has a quizzical look on their face, I provide the relevant context.

We are well paid. But some of us have hobbies. My hobby also comes in handy when questions come in at the office related not to the science of peak, but its hysteria. Normal geoscientists don't know who the hell Ruppert is, but when someone uses his name and everyone else has a quizzical look on their face, I provide the relevant context.

1. Your hobby is to adopt an alias similar to a ten year old youtube viewer and tell everyone in forums about your engineering experience and the 'Church of Peakers'? Hmmmm

2. Lets just pretend you are an engineer. To begin with you are immediately going to be biased when it comes to oil discussions in the same was a New-Age herbal medicine doctor (Holistic Engineer) would be when discussing cancer treatment. Why not ask BP to debunk the dangers off deep-water drilling? Why not ask Goldman Sachs to debunk the notion of limits to growth?

3. Why don't you actually debunk something instead of posting infantile responses? All I can see is church-this, minset that, groupthink and other twaddle.

4. This may come as a surprise to you but I'm not entirely convinced about peak oil, but can certainly understand the 'attraction' to hoping it exists. Take a look at the endless waves of traffic, the damage to our planet and the blood shed over it. Its all to do with oil; the faster we can move away from it the better - but then thats certainly not within your interests now is it Mr.Engineer.

My hobby is to track the circular references, pay attention to the qualifications of those references, and to check off each prognostication as they come and go.

As far as debunking, JD seems to have that ground well covered, and I have actually used his website as a reference to debunk the various Churchs of Peak which populate the net. No point in reinventing the wheel now is there?

In the meantime, the prior poster who grouped peakers into the anxiety (neurotic-hypochondriacs) and cult (religious nuts) Doomers had the bases pretty well covered for explaining peakers.

No need for me to invent the scheme to fit them into when its already been well covered just in the comments section of this blog.

"Just tell them that whatever esteemed church of peak you belong to has determined that presenters at the AAPG national conference are known trolls and should be banned forthwith."

Still trying to figure out why you were banned by the Oil Drum, eh? You'd think a person who's trying to impersonate a petroleum engineer and curry some favor for his "alternative" views would at least try to feign intelligence and civility. You'd think a distinguished petroleum engineer would find a forum of his peers, a forum worthy of a man of his stature in the petroleum industry, a forum that wouldn't tolerate clowns who post juvenile insults using idiotic pseudonyms.

Here's a hint, RGR, the real petroleum engineers at the conference don't care about some JiffyLube bozo getting bitch-slapped on TOD any more the readers of this dogshit forum.

Also RGR is an esteemed, well known, highly regarded oil technician the entire industrial civilization depends on, and he uses phrases such as:

Church of PeakMr MoneyPantsyou might hurt a neuronI've been busy writing another scholarly articleadd donkey ears

Finally, I need to write to Google to tell them their search engine is broken! It seems searching for ReserveGrowthRulz only brings up a history of smarmy trolling of doomer sites, where are all the intelligent debates coming from our top engineer?

You guys and gals make up your mind on this one but I think I already know the answer :)

I've never been banned by TOD. My membership over there is 2 or 3 years old now. Posted over there just last night. Under my usual username of course.

You'd think a distinguished petroleum engineer would find a forum of his peers,

Of course. Why else do you think I publish my work in peer reviewed science journals? Chris Vernon at TOD has offered me the opportunity to write an article for them, but I had to decline.

And while your fascination with Jiffy Lube is undoubtedly some form of projection, I must ask, are you the welcher who made the $5000 offer and then tucked tail and ran, or is that another anonymous member of your congregation?

It seems searching for ReserveGrowthRulz only brings up a history of smarmy trolling of doomer sites, where are all the intelligent debates coming from our top engineer?

I posted one of the best science articles in the past 15 years on peak oil at TOD and do you know what the local lawyer/historian said?

Whaaa!! Its science! I can't get it on the net because its really science and not just another peaker circular reference! Whaaaa! No fair!

When I pointed out that I have no more ease of access to a law library than he does 50 years of the AAPG Bulletin, he has his professional tools and I have mine, he called me a troll and stomped off in a huff.

I reserve the right to notice that even educated and seemingly higher brow peakers, when confronted with actual science references on a given topic, are as likely to storm off in a huff when confronted with a dissenting opinion as our local anonymous children are.

And in the interests of full disclosure, I've been a scientist now for longer than I was a working petroleum engineer.

"I must ask, are you the welcher who made the $5000 offer and then tucked tail and ran, or is that another anonymous member of your congregation?"

No one's welching, Mr. Wizard, just waiting for another anonymous entity - JD - to step forward and act as intermediary between the two other anonymous characters in this charade. I suggest you hold your breath to expededite that process.

Pray tell, what's the title of the "best science articles in the past 15 years on peak oil" that was so cruelly refudiated over at TOD? Perhaps you could post it here for the edification of GJ and me?

Pray tell, what's the title of the "best science articles in the past 15 years on peak oil" that was so cruelly refudiated over at TOD? Perhaps you could post it here for the edification of GJ and me?

Are you kidding? You have undoubtedly been praying at the altar of peak for years now, and you don't even know what the best science work done on the topic has been over the past decade or two? Written by an actual scientist? Published in a peer reviewed journal, answered in later additions of the same journal by Campbell, Deffeyes and Duncan?

What is it with you crackpots? Isn't checking the actual science something you are supposed to check out BEFORE launching off half cocked into one hysterical direction or another? Isn't that a point of pride among peakers, to pretend they checked out all the angles before launching themselves off into their favorite anti-yuppy tirade?

And now you are asking a jiffy lube specialist for the actual science?

You guys are so good at ignorance, why don't you just stick with that? Jesus, next you'll be asking me to teach you how to google....

I posted one of the best science articles in the past 15 years on peak oil at TOD and do you know what the local lawyer/historian said?

You sound completely ridiculous. How can any article be described as 'the best' by it's own author and be taken seriously? Could you cite a New York Times reference giving a glowing review of this ground breaking troll posting? And finally for your information 'peak oil' is not just science but a social and economic issue. Maybe you need to start supplying some sort of evidence to all your wild claims to be taken remotely seriously because at this current point in time you are appearing more of a Walter Mitty than credible scientist!

How can any article be described as 'the best' by it's own author and be taken seriously?

It wasn't described as 'the best' by its author, it was described as 'the best' by me.

And finally for your information 'peak oil' is not just science but a social and economic issue.

That depends on which particular version of peak oil you subscribe to. Do you have a link which best expresses the tenets of your particular peak oil belief? Even the individual web churches of peak have different flavors of believers within them, you almost need a map to sort out all the denominations.

I'm not sure what my opinion of TOD is just yet. It censors pretty heavily, and doesn't seem to mind the idiot peaker component, as demonstrated in part by Oilfinders find (and I've seen the same type of stuff posted by others), but can any site try and talk about peak oil without the standard peaker getting in and bringing down the average IQ of the joint?

My main objective would have to be more professional, I've had several of its "technical" articles cited by colleagues who didn't know any better, and then I've had to point out what a bad idea that was. Some of the oil technical articles are obviously written by a professional and are quite good, but a layman doesn't know the difference.

I'm not qualified to know the accuracy of some of the other non-oil technical articles, but I suspect that one too many soon to graduate college students who can't get their ideas or work accepted by the peer reviewed science world use the place as a dumping ground. I suppose if you can't get published in the real world its better than nothing, but the first time I see a TOD citation on a resume I'll know that TOD has "arrived" as it were. Hate to say it but I would probably automatically discount the qualifications of any science applicant who makes that basic of a mistake.

"Isn't this cherry-picking of wrong-predictions starting to get a bit dull now. I mean if you are going to be fair then look at the other side of the story:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/closing-circle.html

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:14:00 PM PDT"

The reason you don't have a larger number of hybrids on the road now is just more proof that peak oil didn't happen. Why buy a hybrid when oil is cheap and plentiful?

As to the doomer fantasy that technology is science fiction. The facts are, highway capable BEVs are now in mass production, and will be in showrooms in a few months. Production fuel cell vehicles are on the roads now being tested. With mass production planned for 2015.

"The reason you don't have a larger number of hybrids on the road now is just more proof that peak oil didn't happen. Why buy a hybrid when oil is cheap and plentiful?"

Such sloppy logic. One reason there are so few hybrids on the road is because they're expensive and the ROI is low even with oil at 4 times the price it was when Bush took office. Talk about cheap and plentiful... only if you want to talk about inflation.

The real enviros know that hybrids and EV have batteries that are full of toxic crap that require a major mining effort to extract.

More importantly, regardless of your environmental views, who's going to buy a hybrid when they can't pay the bills you have now and can't get a loan anyway? Why borrow 30 grand to buy a hybrid to save a few bucks a month on gas?

I thought oil was cheap and plentiful? Surely the point was that the above date was supposed to be 2010 now it's 2015?? Aren't you doing exactly what doomers do in which case where is the castigation and reprimand to wrong predictions? The hypocrisy, obfuscation and duck-and-dive debating on this site and forum is ridiculous!

I mean if you are going to be fair then look at the other side of the story:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/closing-circle.html

Which genius has been trying to pretend that peak oil isn't a religion? And then as a reference they use...someone who is a grand dragon wizard in his religion or somesuch? Someone remind me, when did the ArchDruid Grandwizard get his degree in geology?

Gosh, Mr. Wizard, please explain it to me! Will buying a hybrid help save the environment? Will I save money on gasoline? How much will it cost me to save that money? Should I sell my 10 year old Civic to the scrap yard?

Come on over to TOD, ask a question. I've got the same username there, with a 2 after it. At least that way I'll know which username I'm responding to, rather than all these denominations pretending to be anonymous to hide from their posting history.

And then as a reference they use...someone who is a grand dragon wizard in his religion or somesuch?

This is comical.1. You haven't looked at the link2. It isn't a reference, it is a link to a blog post which points out that a 'cornucopian' made a failed prediction. As you are increasingly incapable let me paste the start here: Under prodding by energy analyst Steve Andrews, Lovins insisted among other things that by the year 2010, hybrid and fuel cell cars would account for between half and two thirds of the cars on the road in the United States.

Lovins was completely wrong, as we now know – hybrid cars account for maybe 5% of the current US automobile fleet, and you can look through every automobile showroom in North America for a car powered by fuel cells and not find one – and it’s to Andrews’ credit that he pointed this out to Lovins at the time. What makes Lovins’ failed prediction all the more fascinating is that there was never any significant chance that it would pan out, for reasons as predictable as they were pragmatic

My point was you don't hear JD banging on about these kind of failed predictions.

ReserveGrowthRulz your logic and argument are sounding increasingly desperate as you alienate people with your cocky, condescending internet trolling

And where is that best article in the last few decades? You still haven't shown any evidence of it existing, much like your qualification!

ReserveGrowthRulz - I'm not a peaker and read this site regularly; TBH am undecided at the moment as to which way the future will go - I can't help noticing though you still haven't provided a reference to this article - are you being deceptive on purpose?

This list is from memory, people doing peer reviewed science on some peak topic or another ranging from EROEI to reserve growth to playing with Hubbert models or even just predicting the end of oil, pre-2000 work only, and let me sit at my desk for 5 minutes and I could double this list without trying hard. I know a few of these people are still doing work, Hall and Cleveland still show up in EROEI analysis papers at TOD. Of course, what isn't mentioned is that one of them wrote a paper in the early 80's claiming that low EROEI was going to stop oil drilling in the US by 2000. Extra points for the peaker who can actually utilize a real library and find the journal it was published in.

There are a few familiar names there, i mean others than the obvious ones too, some unfamiliar too.

But then, many of these have been linked too or quoted on TOD, or energybulletin or somesuch.

Anyway, to the point - what exactly is the ground breaking research that you were referring to that has been ignored - which prompted you to call this group ignorant before "checking the science".

Your example of first naming Hall and Cleveland and then mentioning what crap they have published just proves my point. So please, oh please, spit it out already. Oh wait, you can't - cause it aint't in there.

I think that the relevant research relating to peak oil spans across so many areas of science, that single very significant papers on the issue are hard to come by. In addition to that, the most important areas are related to economy and engineering, and in these are areas I would say it's quite hard to see beyond that 10 year time frame.

Then you also have politics and scientific research on new technology like biofuels or synthetic fuels. Heck, even the search for existing oil and gas resources changes. But could these changes be foreseen over 10 years ago?

With the above in mind as the most defining things relating to the issue, i think it's rather foolish to claim there is some old research which would be very central to the issue, and that it would for some reason have been forgotten from the debate.

You can double the list all you want - I'm just interested in what relevant central research you can come up with (especially old such) that anyone so concerned with the issue wouldn't know about it.